I think all.gov and.mil addresses should be changed to.gov.us and.mil.us addresses
Can you imagine what a hassle it would be to change all the.mil and.gov web sites? I think it would be easier for the US to just overthrow the rest of the world, and then we can get by with the.gov and.mil domains.
Your are right about this. There is a large industry that shorts IPOs before the lock up date when the stock floods the market. The US stock market has done a good job creating a market that sane investors should avoid.
I had the patent on stupidity. Since most of the dot com ideas were "stupid," I thought I would get rich. But when it finally got down to the suing, I found out I filled in the forms wrong, and it didn't work as planned.
Technology has been dropping the price of publishing. Meaning that everyone has more access to moe works published in more forms than at any time in history. This is due largely to the hard working people that you loath and hate.
In many third world nations, the cell phone infastructure is outpacing the line technology. I would really not be surprised to see the same thing happening with ebooks, since the cost of delivery is a fraction of the cost of delivery of a printed book.
The libraries in Salt Lake have public access computers, and are getting more traffic than ever before. The media is simply getting more interesting.
IMHO, the biggest problem faced by libraries it that there is some much more information published each year, that they cannot keep up with the growth. Storing information on remote servers will be a welcome boon.
Imagine if a unversity switched to ebooks. With textbooks taking about $300-$500 a quarter...students could very quickly reach the break even point.
Some subject, like history, might be better suited for electronic books. You could give the students a ton of public domain source material.
Re:Metathis and Metathat
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, it sounds like I am paranoid
I think you have a good cause to be paranoid. MS is trying to push out and control a new metalanguage. This process of elites defining new metalanguages has gone on throughout history. Almost all dictatorships pull this type of metalanguage crap.
Stepping up to the plate and defining a new language or changing the definition of terms is one of the oldest methods to oppress the people. When you work yourself in the position that you can redefine terms, the rest of the world becomes helpless. You gain absolute power. All you have to do is make a subtle shift in the definition, and it will throw your competition off their feet.
Look at how many times Microsoft has pulled off a redefinition of OLE. Each time they changed the definition weakened anyone using the the product.
Microsoft is not the only one guilty of trying to monopolize a market by defining a metatheory. Rational is basically a company that does nothing but play in the meta language games. Sun plays the same game with Java, etc..
Generally things go wrong with the elite redefine terms. Look at Enron. The elite new-economy accountants found clever ways to redefine liabilities. Poof, one day, all the idiots who invested in the company found their investments gone.
Other pathetic examples of meta theories happen all the time in politics--like Clinton's trying to redefine what "sex" with an intern means. Sorry about the rant. I just get sick of people who play definition games.
By posting somthing on the public net without any access controls you are granting everyone on the planet an implicit license to use your stuff.
The key word in your argument is use. You are not granting people to copy your stuff and claim that it is theirs, nor are you granting permission for another company to pull the image off your site and display it with their ads.
You are right, however, that there is a general understanding that stuff posted in public places is meant to be used by the public. I welcome efforts that help us understand exactly what use means.
PS There are tons of things people can do to you or with your information that you cannot protect with an htaccess file.
it's not society's responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity.
BTW, how thick do the bars have to be on your windows before you say the house behind them didn't deserve being robbed? I can still take the info off you site with your HTACCESS file.
There are a lot of things I expect society to protect me from. I expect society to protect me from people driving on the side walk or running red lights. When my car was smashed by drunk teen who ran a red light, I expected society to force the idiot to pay for my car. Your specious analogy would say I was stupid for being outdoors.
Since most people and companies behave with civility, defining the rules takes care of 90% of the problem. Yes, there are Enrons and Microsofts which bend rules at every corner. But most people are decent.
Red Hat needs to find a pissed of ex-BSA employee who will steal the list of all the current BSA cases and do a little targetted marketing. he he he...
I think this would pretty much fall into the collector's market...like used dolls. Hobbyist are supposed to declare the sales with no deductions (but I think the government ignores the small stuff). Bigger players would be full businesses.
The big question in front of the court is to what extent the game companies can pull their product out of the free market.
If there is perceived economic value in something, you should be able to sell it. The market will exist.
As for the tax thing. You have the same problem with any value added product. The maker of nails doesn't have to worry about the taxes owed by contractors who use nails. If a person makes money for selling characters then they are the ones responsible for paying the taxes--not the game company.
You have to have a credit card to view porn, you have to have a credit card to play games.
Well, the do-gooders of the world have accomplished one goal. They taught every 13 year old boy in the world how to do credit card fraud.
I think it is great that people can build real economic value for the time spent in cyber space. Lawyers saying that the puppet masters (the big game companies) should be the only ones to benefit from a game is rather lame.
People should be free to determine there own values, and engage in commerce as they see fit...that is kind of what makes free markets work.
>
With all the cool graphics programs and special effects software on the market...I think NASA should redo all those old smoke and mirror movies they made in the 70s that convinced everyone that the earth was round and that we could go to the moon... A good fx job would keep up the big lie and revive the industrial military complex in the recession....sorry couldn't resist that one...
Re:We (probably) won't ever actually ACHIEVE AI
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Conversely, Actual AI will probably be something different than the pundits think it is, and it will probably end up having a different name than AI.
For example, the Turing Test (whether or not we confuse a discussion with a machine with a discussion with a human) is the worst possible definition of AI. A truly intelligent machine would have an entirely different perspective on the universe, and sound very unhuman in conversation.
Turing might as well said, when machines start chasing women around single bars, they are intelligent.
Re:A practical definition of A.I.
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
>
Computers are already language creatures. Notice that they talk in computer languages like binary code, C++, HTML.
The Turing, human centric definition of AI speaking the King's English seems a bit quaint. True AI will probably talk about things that we find incredibly boring in a language that is harder for us to fathom than Manadarin.
The biggest problem I see is that the Patent process will undoubtedly end up skewing the discovery process. Companies will change their discovery and research policies to make patentable discoveries, as opposed to objective discoveries.
You will also see that that companies that gear their entire research process to patents will have a big club to drive out other methods of discovery.
Whenever lawyers are involved the quality of life will deteriorate.
Slashdot Mirror
I think all .gov and .mil addresses should be changed to .gov.us and .mil.us addresses
.mil and .gov web sites? I think it would be easier for the US to just overthrow the rest of the world, and then we can get by with the .gov and .mil domains.
Can you imagine what a hassle it would be to change all the
Your are right about this. There is a large industry that shorts IPOs before the lock up date when the stock floods the market. The US stock market has done a good job creating a market that sane investors should avoid.
I had the patent on stupidity. Since most of the dot com ideas were "stupid," I thought I would get rich. But when it finally got down to the suing, I found out I filled in the forms wrong, and it didn't work as planned.
Technology has been dropping the price of publishing. Meaning that everyone has more access to moe works published in more forms than at any time in history. This is due largely to the hard working people that you loath and hate.
In many third world nations, the cell phone infastructure is outpacing the line technology. I would really not be surprised to see the same thing happening with ebooks, since the cost of delivery is a fraction of the cost of delivery of a printed book.
The libraries in Salt Lake have public access computers, and are getting more traffic than ever before. The media is simply getting more interesting.
IMHO, the biggest problem faced by libraries it that there is some much more information published each year, that they cannot keep up with the growth. Storing information on remote servers will be a welcome boon.
Imagine if a unversity switched to ebooks. With textbooks taking about $300-$500 a quarter...students could very quickly reach the break even point.
Some subject, like history, might be better suited for electronic books. You could give the students a ton of public domain source material.
I think you have a good cause to be paranoid. MS is trying to push out and control a new metalanguage. This process of elites defining new metalanguages has gone on throughout history. Almost all dictatorships pull this type of metalanguage crap.
Stepping up to the plate and defining a new language or changing the definition of terms is one of the oldest methods to oppress the people. When you work yourself in the position that you can redefine terms, the rest of the world becomes helpless. You gain absolute power. All you have to do is make a subtle shift in the definition, and it will throw your competition off their feet.
Look at how many times Microsoft has pulled off a redefinition of OLE. Each time they changed the definition weakened anyone using the the product.
Microsoft is not the only one guilty of trying to monopolize a market by defining a metatheory. Rational is basically a company that does nothing but play in the meta language games. Sun plays the same game with Java, etc..
Generally things go wrong with the elite redefine terms. Look at Enron. The elite new-economy accountants found clever ways to redefine liabilities. Poof, one day, all the idiots who invested in the company found their investments gone.
Other pathetic examples of meta theories happen all the time in politics--like Clinton's trying to redefine what "sex" with an intern means. Sorry about the rant. I just get sick of people who play definition games.
Of course they consider it "confidential". You get a lot more money when the information you're selling is confidential!!!!
The other Hollywood twist is that the bad guy routes their phone through several different switches, making it more difficult to track down the user.
The Netflix marketing stategy where you have x number of DVDs out does a better job of keeping the lemmings in line.
By posting somthing on the public net without any access controls you are granting everyone on the planet an implicit license to use your stuff.
The key word in your argument is use. You are not granting people to copy your stuff and claim that it is theirs, nor are you granting permission for another company to pull the image off your site and display it with their ads.
You are right, however, that there is a general understanding that stuff posted in public places is meant to be used by the public. I welcome efforts that help us understand exactly what use means.
PS There are tons of things people can do to you or with your information that you cannot protect with an htaccess file. it's not society's responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity. BTW, how thick do the bars have to be on your windows before you say the house behind them didn't deserve being robbed? I can still take the info off you site with your HTACCESS file.
There are a lot of things I expect society to protect me from. I expect society to protect me from people driving on the side walk or running red lights. When my car was smashed by drunk teen who ran a red light, I expected society to force the idiot to pay for my car. Your specious analogy would say I was stupid for being outdoors.
Since most people and companies behave with civility, defining the rules takes care of 90% of the problem. Yes, there are Enrons and Microsofts which bend rules at every corner. But most people are decent.
"unless you acutally use a lock, like, say, http basic authentication"
This would mean that only the technically elite who can figure out how to write such locks deserve copyright protection.
Some times I don't lock my car door. Does that mean I don't deserve to have my car stereo.
Red Hat needs to find a pissed of ex-BSA employee who will steal the list of all the current BSA cases and do a little targetted marketing. he he he...
I think this would pretty much fall into the collector's market...like used dolls. Hobbyist are supposed to declare the sales with no deductions (but I think the government ignores the small stuff). Bigger players would be full businesses.
The big question in front of the court is to what extent the game companies can pull their product out of the free market. If there is perceived economic value in something, you should be able to sell it. The market will exist. As for the tax thing. You have the same problem with any value added product. The maker of nails doesn't have to worry about the taxes owed by contractors who use nails. If a person makes money for selling characters then they are the ones responsible for paying the taxes--not the game company.
I am just wondering what a cyber character will fetch you in the 2070 version of the Antique Road Show.
You have to have a credit card to view porn, you have to have a credit card to play games. Well, the do-gooders of the world have accomplished one goal. They taught every 13 year old boy in the world how to do credit card fraud.
I think it is great that people can build real economic value for the time spent in cyber space. Lawyers saying that the puppet masters (the big game companies) should be the only ones to benefit from a game is rather lame. People should be free to determine there own values, and engage in commerce as they see fit...that is kind of what makes free markets work.
> With all the cool graphics programs and special effects software on the market...I think NASA should redo all those old smoke and mirror movies they made in the 70s that convinced everyone that the earth was round and that we could go to the moon... A good fx job would keep up the big lie and revive the industrial military complex in the recession. ...sorry couldn't resist that one...
Conversely, Actual AI will probably be something different than the pundits think it is, and it will probably end up having a different name than AI. For example, the Turing Test (whether or not we confuse a discussion with a machine with a discussion with a human) is the worst possible definition of AI. A truly intelligent machine would have an entirely different perspective on the universe, and sound very unhuman in conversation. Turing might as well said, when machines start chasing women around single bars, they are intelligent.
>
Computers are already language creatures. Notice that they talk in computer languages like binary code, C++, HTML.
The Turing, human centric definition of AI speaking the King's English seems a bit quaint. True AI will probably talk about things that we find incredibly boring in a language that is harder for us to fathom than Manadarin.
Althought, it may be more accurate to say "he programs governments now."
The biggest problem I see is that the Patent process will undoubtedly end up skewing the discovery process. Companies will change their discovery and research policies to make patentable discoveries, as opposed to objective discoveries. You will also see that that companies that gear their entire research process to patents will have a big club to drive out other methods of discovery. Whenever lawyers are involved the quality of life will deteriorate.
> Uh, if we ever came up with something truly "intelligent," I am sure that it will quickly figure out that it doesn't want humans to know about it.